Australia Day 2022 Hobart – marks dark day for justice

Andrew L. Urban.

 Was it Sam Devine who killed Bob Chappell 13 years ago this Australia Day? Was Sue Neill-Fraser wrongfully convicted of murdering Bob and jailed for 23 years? These are key questions raised by eye-witness testimony and legal reviews. 

The Mercury, March 2, 2021

Australia Day 2022 is a dark day for justice. On that day 13 years ago, a young lout in Hobart called Sam Devine allegedly killed 65 year old Bob Chappell, in company with another male, during a fight on board Chappell’s yacht Four Winds, moored in the Derwent at Sandy Bay. Bob’s partner Sue Neill-Fraser, 67, is still in prison convicted of Chappell’s murder 

We know about that fight because Meaghan Vass most recently told the Tasmanian Court of Appeal, on March 1, 2021 about it. (See # below) Two years earlier, on March 10, 2019, on prime time television, Vass had publicly admitted to having been on board on Australia Day 2009 and witnessed the fight, explaining how her DNA came to be at the scene. (See ## below)

It isn’t only Sue Neill-Fraser supporters who question the conviction and demand an inquiry.

Chester Porter QC

Legendary QC, the late Chester Porter of Lindy Chamberlain Royal Commission fame, expressed his deep concerns back in 2013. Speaking on camera at a public forum after the screening of Shadow of Doubt (Eve Ash, 2013), he called for an inquiry.

Since then, countless documents – and podcasts, documentaries, books, blogs, a play, current affairs tv shows and dozens of articles – have chronicled the failures and the malpractices that Tasmania’s legal system has allowed to convict and keep jailed an evidently innocent person – before and since March 2019 (eg the doco Shadow of Doubt, July 2013; the Etter Selby legally argued papers, August 2021). In November 2021, after Neill-Fraser’s latest appeal in March that year, Justice Estcourt, dissenting from his two colleagues on the appeal bench, said he “would uphold the appeal and quash the appellant’s conviction for murder” complete with his reasons. On January 13, 2022, we published a detailed and damning legal analysis by Dr Bob Moles, of Justice Wood’s error-prone leading judgment in dismissing that appeal.

“I would uphold the appeal and quash the appellant’s conviction for murder.” – Justice Estcourt, dissenting judge, 2021 appeal

The case has been a litany of incompetence and malevolence – exacerbated by belligerence and denial.

Neither the current nor former DPP involved in the case, nor Tasmania’s Attorney-General, have made any public statements acknowledging that troubling new evidence reinforces the view that the conviction is unsafe – or any intention to commit to or support an inquiry. The only public figures who have expressed concern about the conviction are former Premier Lara Giddings, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie and The Hon Mike Gaffney (Ind) of the Legislative Council (who tabled the Etter Selby papers). Inaction and silence in the face of injustice is complicity. This egregious miscarriage of justice should deeply disturb the conscience of every reasonable Tasmanian … and everyone else.

Twisting in the wind of discontent fuelled by this fiasco, tainted senior Tasmanian police and a self-serving Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have resisted the pursuit of justice. The DPP could have (should have) conceded that there are now a number of issues which provide an incontrovertible argument that the 2021 appeal should have been allowed, something not uncommon in the UK. (That would have avoided Neill-Fraser troubling an overburdened High Court and the risk of bringing acute embarrassment to Tasmania’s legal system with her seeking leave to appeal, lodged January 4, 2022.)

For an appeal to be successful, the appellant only has to put some evidence or argument, which if it had been before the jury at the trial, would have been sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about their verdict – once that occurs, the Crown should concede.

The overturning of Sue’s conviction requires merely to show there was an error at trial which could reasonably have influenced the jury in arriving at their verdict. There are plenty of them. 

Sadly, Tasmania’s legal institutions have already brought the system into disrepute with the handling of this case. Even some of the State’s learned judges have been drawn into error.

(another) request to A-G: commit to inquiry

The conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser offends against our basic idea of fairness, the one that is hardwired into us, the one that has evolved, as The Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein puts it. No wonder that nearly 28,000 people have signed the petition calling for an inquiry.

We call on Tasmania’s Attorney-General to commit to a Parliamentary Inquiry into The killing of Bob Chappell & subsequent murder conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser, such inquiry to be overseen by an interstate judge or former judge and assisted by an interstate Senior Counsel. Such inquiry to be held irrespective of the outcome of any High Court appeal.

# transcript extract, Court of Appeal, March 1, 2021
EXN – MR RICHTER QC: Alright, Meaghan. I want to ask you a question relating to the night of Australia day in 2009. Australia Day on that occasion was the 26th and it usually is, the 26th of January. On that night, were you present on a yacht called “The Four Winds”?……..Yes.
MR RICHTER QC: (Resuming) I asked you about the night of Australia Day 2009. When you went to the boat, did you go there alone?……..No.
Who was with you, can you say?……Kind – sort of a partner at the time.
And who was your partner at the time?……Samuel Devine.
Okay. I just want to ask you one other thing, and it’s this. Do you know the applicant in this matter; do you know Susan?……Yes.
Yes? And was she on the boat on the – ?……No.
-Four Winds that night?…...No.


## Transcript extracts, 60 Minutes, Ch 9, March 10, 2019
LIAM BARTLETT: So, you know who killed Bob Chappell?
LIAM BARTLETT: And it certainly wasn’t Sue Neill-Fraser?
LIAM BARTLETT: So, on that day, why did you decide to go out into the bay?
MEAGHAN VASS: I would have been along with him, um, I reckon, um no doubt he would have been knocking things off boats; um for money to get on, get on the piss and that being the case, I would have, you know, gone along, [indistinct] me that but, not so that I would so much steal, but y’know to have a drink or…
LIAM BARTLETT: You were just tagging along
MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh! Yep. It was something that they – he’d do often …

MEAGHAN VASS: I remember being on board and the person that I was with had obviously been spotted by Bob – I don’t know – being told to piss off, they’ve had an argument, it’s escalated, he’s hit Bob – I don’t know what with –
LIAM BARTLETT: So he struck him?
MEAGHAN VASS: Quite a few times I think. Probably twenty minutes or so…
LIAM BARTLETT: Twenty minutes?
MEAGHAN VASS: Roundabout.
LIAM BARTLETT: When you say there was a lot of blood, were you downstairs, were you on the deck, were you in the cabin?
MEAGHAN VASS: I’m – on deck I think.
LIAM BARTLETT: And what was your reaction to that?
MEAGHAN VASS:  It’s when I’ve thrown up, the vomit.

The legal position is that Meaghan Vass is regarded as an unreliable witness, having twice changed her testimony, recanting that she had been on board to witness the fight that resulted in Bob Chappell’s death. However, it would be absurd to cling to that legal position in the real-world assessment of her testimony. As we have previously argued, it has never been shown why Vass would insert herself into this case at some risk, if she had no reason to. That is, if she was not an eyewitness to the fight on the yacht. As to why would she recant, long story short, young, homeless, overwrought and stressed, she was scared into it both times.

The apologists for the conviction have been trying to ‘keep Vass off the boat’ for years.

The legal position viz Sam Devine is that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn’t extinguish suspicion, built on Vass’s account and known facts. Sam Devine was not investigated when he was “a documented criminal associate of Vass (in January 2009) after a check of his criminal history and general intelligence/knowledge about the Devine family in Hobart,” according to the Etter Selby papers tabled in Parliament in August 2021.

Readers are welcome, as usual, to post respectful comments – but please note that we will not publish any commentary regurgitating claims that Meaghan Vass was not on the boat, or was not on the boat at the relevant time, or that her DNA was a secondary transfer. These matters have been thoroughly aired in previous discussions as well as in the recent reports on the appeal and the dissenting judgment to the dismissal of that appeal.

This entry was posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Australia Day 2022 Hobart – marks dark day for justice

  1. Brian Johnston says:

    “The case has been a litany of incompetence and malevolence – exacerbated by belligerence and denial”.

    Lets get one thing clear. The above statement is totally incorrect.

    Sue is deliberately in gaol. She is there for a reason. Powerful forces have put her there.

    The supporters group have to get real. They should have been protesting the trials and appeals.

    As a footnote. Bryant is also innocent. What is wrong in Tasmania?

    • Garry Stannus says:

      Yes, I acknowledge your

      The supporters group have to get real. They should have been protesting the trials and appeals.

      … but, in all those years, we did not want to jeopardise the years of hearings which eventually achieved the 2nd appeal and then the 2nd leave application to the High Court. In any case, we have in all those years protested outside the Parliament and have in writing and otherwise appealed against the decisions which placed and affirmed the conviction of Sue … and have by our ongoing presence in the Supreme Court across the road, challenged implicitly, her imprisonment.

      And now, her parole…

      So, Brian, are you a supporter of Sue? Are you one of the supporters group? Some of us did not want to challenge – and thus split – the then developing base of support for Sue … the ‘pro bono’ lawyers, the family, the friends’ support for her and … who were we? And … whoever we were or are, we did not know all the inner workings and did not want to ‘upset the apple cart’. We are still caught in the same bind.

      Now, personally, I’m looking to Sue for guidance. I don’t know the extent of constraints that have been placed on her. What does Sue want now? Now that’s shes been on parole for several months… with leg iron, monitoring and reporting conditions ongoing for ten years … till 2032. What does Sue want?

  2. owen allen says:

    Thanks Andrew, I have vented in brief Tasmania Corruption Case Study 1. Owen Allen, Case Study 2 is more sordid, violent , criminal and corrupt. When I am ready, if you allow me I will present a brief. There must be some people who are interested in helping set things right in Tasmania, such as JUSTICE My experience can only help everyone. The more evidence the better.

  3. Diane Kemp says:

    There is not much more that the Tasmanian Government and the unjust Tasmanian legal system can throw at Sue to try to maintain this corrupt conviction, Deny, deny, deny is the mantra they operate by. It is ludicrous to maintain this stance yet still they continue despite all the evidence that pulls apart Sue’s wrongful conviction. Stupidity at it’s best!!!!
    Stay strong Sue – there are so many who will not give up this fight until you are freed, exonerated and compensated.
    Then, let’s line up all those who have deliberately played a role in this and fill the cells at Risdon Prison with them – will need to bring in judges from outside Tasmania to complete this.
    As an afterthought, maybe try and convict the actual murderer who still walks free among you in Tasmania.

  4. owen allen says:

    Please Andrew allow me to repeat myself for newcomers and my own consolidation of the situation. Tasmania Mafia exists, it is real. The Tasmania Mafia consists of MP’s who come and go, Bureaucrats at any level, Tasmania Police, Supreme Court Judges, Magistrates, private enterprise and suburban criminals. Of course not all of mentioned are Mafia, but those that aren’t are very afraid. eg. Meaghan Vass, GOD BLESS HER and ANDREA who is not afraid to stand up and attempt to protect and support a victim of TRUTH. My personal experience in Tasmania consists of, speaking out environmental personal issue, illegal truck parked opposite house starting 4.00am regularly.Truck owner, son of local bureaucrat{mayor}in another jurisdiction. My boss warned me about the truck. I am sacked and then shafted. But the Federated Airline Pilots Union helped me. Then of couse in an industry of very few operators and pilots I seemed to be black listed because I couldn’t get a job back in Australia and on and on it goes, I didn’t give up; and later they raised their ugly head again at a different level.Corrupt cops, again, prison, business loss and then maximum prison for playing guitar in a public place, and then another arrest warrant for attending a public seminar in a public place. I AM ON FIRE; AGAIN, MY DEPRESSION IS NEARLY GONE. I AM DEPRESSED FOR SUE AND MEAGHAN. GOD LOVES YOU . GOD LOVES US ALL.

  5. owen allen says:

    Tasmania is the last bastion of white supremacy, of English Old School. Predemption is their course. Why, the power they think they hold over the plebs in the burbs. But the corrupt intertwine, the Sandy Bay and the Burbs do criminal business.And the judiciary flow with the cops who rule the roost. Got the guff. Royal Commission Tasmania. Release Sue NOW.

  6. owen allen says:

    I put this question up. Why? Ask Whistle Blowers Tasmania about Tasmania Govt Corruption. I have experienced it all, from street level to the Office of The State. I am being encouraged by Senior Feds to go public, I am still not healed, but I guess as long as I am still walking and breathing I must continue to resist Tasmanian Corruption. I thank every contributor to WC for helping me heal thus far. This is a nightmare for everyone involved and caring enough to participate.

    • Robert Greenshields says:

      “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty” Owen. Keep strong.

      • owen allen says:

        Thanks Robert, Yes, absolutely; can you believe I was even too depressed to ride. But now I am riding everyday including[to work and back 2 minutes.] and loving it. A passion for sure but I need to fly, aerobatics. Personal development, skill enhancement, love the sky to play in, a passion and started in 82 for training purposes, revisted in 2000 for retraining purposes, now a recreational dream. I need sponsorship and or an international best seller to fund my dream. LOL

      • owen allen says:

        Aerobatic pilots are best pilots. I was trained aerobatics by RAAF Wing Commander. Fighter pilots and agricultural pilots protect, I have great experiences where I have been out of my depth. Experience is the best training if you survive. LOL..

        • Robert Greenshields says:

          Store in your memory bank the old Latin phrase, “nil desperandum illegitimate carborundum” Owen and never forget it. I think that it translates into “don’t let the bastards grind you down “.

          • owen allen says:

            Taa Robert, I am coming out the other side, thanks to Andrew and WC, who are my teamsters; and my local coffee mates; and Cyril and Cpt Lawton who helped me when my head was mash.

  7. Peter Martin says:

    Hopefully the High Court will respond in a timely manner (even though no Tasmanian authority has). That seems to be the best opportunity for SNF to be acquitted.

    I’m pretty sure I know who murdered Bob and possibly everyone else does as well, but nothing can be done about that …. yet! I don’t think there is a statute of limitation on murder.

    • Helen says:

      Hopefully with all the latest Opinions and letters in the Mercury re Sue and especially now there has been the latest letter; with opening a Can of Worms. We also need that Affidavit but unfortunately it did not reach the Court – how typical. Also has anyone approached the British High Commissioner in Canberra. Too difficult with the virus.
      Information too that the Jury may have had very little literacy skills as there is one in five people in Tasmania who are illiterate. I find, since coming back here from Brisbane, that the majority of people, Government employees et al speak in monosyllables and really do not know enough about communication skills or negotiation skills.

  8. David Smith says:

    Every Day there are more and more Government Employees are committing Criminal Offences by Perverting the Course of Justice – Back as far as 2010 to date the cover ups continue by a Corrupt and Dishonest Tasmanian Government – The Cover Up is costing Taxpayers of Tasmania Millions – Money that could be spent on Health and Education and more. The only way to change this Matter is to have a change of Government – Any Idiot who votes for any of the Politicians running again must remember – you are supporting a Corrupt Government and the Conviction of an Innocent Women Wrongly Convicted. Where are the Tasmanian Federal Politicians – why aren’t they screaming Australia Wide just how Corrupt and Dishonest the Justice System and Tasmanian Police really are. The State Politicians are useless by their inaction – Their Policy seems to be – Don’t rock the Boat – I want my big Political Payouts Allowances and the other benefits they receive. The Corrupt Public Servants can only operate when there are Corrupt Politicians – Nothing will change until there is change and only Tasmanians can do that because as they know it – They are Protected by a Corrupt Government.

    • Robert Greenshields says:

      The insidious creep of corruption that eventually regressively affects every Australian citizens daily life, is the evident product of recognised pitiable petri dish styled and cultivated, public service long term cultures and practices David. Alternatively, the private sector, in most cases alone, has long initiated and proved to be the true catalyst of enabling and advancement in all aspects of society, including reviews and validation of legal processes.

      Certain singular personal characteristics are an essential pre requisite, prior to entering into, and willingly sustaining the venality and conformity of many/most public service organisations. The acceptance of what in many cases is looked upon as functional idiocy, hierarchical stratification, irrespective of competence, professionalism, and honest accepted credibility and legitimacy, being one of the most prominent. Ridiculous, discounted, in house designated rank/promotion structured requirements confirm the delusional absurdity of many of the aligned institutions.

      It does not take much insight into understanding aspects of Sue Neill Frasers continuing dilemna, to recognise that many of the fore mentioned, restrictive and corrosive cultures, are seemingly more than actively further eroding the trustworthiness of the transparently inglorious policing, and judicial services in Tasmania.

    • Helen says:

      We only have to look at the documentary on Rupert Murdoch and his family who were associated with none other than Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair who was a prime suspect in highlighting Iraq with WOMD. What a lot of BS. There were no WOMD and yet our Defence suffered extremely with PTSD who went to Iraq. John Howards father was a fascist along with Blair and Bush. John Major of the opposition tried to oppose Blair. Dam corrupt British. All this Australian corruption descends from UK. Take a look at history on the UK. Tasmania is still under the British penal colony without the convicts. Obstacles to Tasmania says it all. Afterall the CIA was involved with the Queen in getting rid of Gough Whitlam, a darn charismatic giant of a man who lived in Cabramatta.
      But the year of the Tiger will breathe some fresh faces into law and reform.

  9. John Biggs says:

    Your summary of the crucial points is just so compelling, creating mountains of doubt about SNF’s guilt, way beyond ‘reasonable doubt’. It makes the Tasmanian justice system seem utterly corrupt, and that should make Tasmanian citizens very afraid. Who is going to be next? The Attorney General is of course using the excuse that the High Court Appeal renders any discussion of the case, and particularly a request for an Inquiry, sub judice. Which shuts down any attempts to right this terrible wrong. So glad you are keeping up the pressure Andrew.

    • andrew says:

      We are calling on the Attorney-General to commit to an inquiry now, regardless of the High Court appeal. The inquiry need not conflict with an appeal..

  10. Robin Bowles says:

    Columns of print, metres of film, hours of podcasts, pages of books, newsprint, endless court hours, victimisation of witnesses for Sue, obduracy of the AG and others, committed advocacy of leaders in Australia’s legal system, dedicated commitment of a staunch band of Supporters, 28000 petitioners seeking an independent inquiry, 14 years of deliberate misinformation— what does it take to get an innocent person out of prison? What more can we do??

    • Pauline Chalmers says:

      Robyn – keep it simple because the minds of people like Colin Riley and Tim Ellis genuinely believe Sue is guilty .
      Teina Pora’s conviction was overturned because Tim McKinnel was able to demonstrate in his film “Confession’s of Prisoner T” which you can Google online, the EXACT moments in the investigation PROCESS, when the detectives took their WRONG turns and followed the WRONG leads, which caused them to arrive at the WRONG conclusions.
      The first and MAJOR WRONG turn in the road, occurred when Powell and Triffett’s minds amalgamated on the second day of Bob’s disappearance. Powell took up and ran with Triffett’s false narrative, and then handed the unsubstantiated “fake facts” to the DPP’s office, to use to prosecute and convict Sue.
      With all this industry, coupled with his deep seated personal belief, Sue was cunning, untruthful and highly manipulative, he turned his back on feeling there was any REAL need for his team to gather further evidence.
      In my mind the crime scene has NEVER undergone a true fact gathering investigation, and thank God the penny has dropped in the mind of at least one person working in law enforcement in Tasmania. Elise Archer clearly lacks CAPACITY to act in the role she has propelled herself into, and she remains blissfully ignorant of her failings.
      If Sue contracts COVID in Risdon there will be MUCH hammering on her office door, to ensure she receives first rate clinical care, and compassionate leave home as indicated!! This is the registered nurse in me, so Gutwein can’t say he hasn’t been warned, if he reads this as I’m sure he does!
      ALL the WRONG turns have to be ironed out, so a true pathway toward the REAL culprits responsible for Bob Chappell’s disappearance are prosecuted and it will happen. Nobody believed it would happen in Teina’s case, after 12 failed parole hearings, but NZ’s WORST miscarriage of justice conviction was overturned, and the Criminal Conviction Review Commission CCRC was established.

      • Julie says:

        With reference to my recent, complete reading of author,Colin McKaren’s, Southern Justice, it astounded me to read former Inspector Powell’s responses to McLaren’s interview, responses that, in total, read as a highly prejudicial judgement of SNF’s character.
        Secondly, the book describes Triffett’s arrests for possession of prohibited firearms & ammunition, yet as the author learnt , Triffett was not charged. It’s peculiar to learn that an exception was made in his case, & points to questions about a relationship existing then between sections of Tas Police & Triffett. All very matey?
        May SNF be awarded the right to appeal , in her application to the High Court.

        • Garry Stannus says:

          Julie, I think you may be correct in your comment about D.I. Powell’s responses. I would be tempted to agree with you. You wrote:

          “Inspector Powell’s responses to McLaren’s interview […] read as a highly prejudicial judgement of SNF’s character.”

          Someone commented recently that they viewed Powell’s attitude to Neill-Fraser as an example of British class antagonism. There are a number of examples that readers will recall. One that comes to mind is his early reluctance to use Neill-Fraser’s hyphenated name.

          With regard to your second point, I think you and Colin Mclaren are incorrect with:

          “the book describes Triffett’s arrests for possession of prohibited firearms & ammunition, yet as the author learnt , Triffett was not charged.”

          Triffett was charged … then his Feb2009 court hearing did not take place. It disappeared for a year and a half … till 2 weeks before Sue’s trial began … Triffett’s case was heard. He did not face charges on all the goods, ammunition (1080 rounds hidden in a fuel tank) and materials that police had seized when they raided his home.

          So he pleads guilty on the basis that yes, the goods were in his possession and it turned out they were stolen, he hadn’t asked questions as to provenance so was prepared to cop it sweet. And how nice … the fellow on the bench gave him a two year good behaviour bond and did not record a conviction!

          If you would like to view my relevant file notes, mostly compiled from various court records, you will find them on my Facebook page. See my recent post:

          • Garry Stannus says:

            CLARIFICATION: The charge Triffett faced on 7Sept2010 was possession of two items of property – a Makita router and a set of MDF stairs and a second element in respect of the ammunition.[“unlawful possession and possess ammunition when not the holder of the appropriate firearm licence]. The other items initially seized by police had been returned to him.

        • Helen says:

          Unfortunately an affidavit was signed about facts on Triffitt . Thats all I will say as Triffett lied so much. Triffett afterall did threaten to shoot Sue and some other person.

          Yes I could not put Colin McLaren’s book down either .
          I was in Brisbane at that time and received an email from one of Bob Chappell’s colleagues and disclosed a precis of what had occurred leaving her in shock and disbelief.
          I have lost faith since coming back to this insular and parochial State but do pray for Sue with the knowledge and empowerment that the Lord will Repay and he will this year.

      • Garry Stannus says:

        Yes, Pauline: and three things must have skewed the police investigation from the outset:
        1 Peter Lorraine‘s report (firstly by phone on 27Jan2009) of seeing an ‘old seafarer’ on the back of a yacht at about 5:00 pm on the afternoon of 26Jan2009:

        Police seemed to have erroneously tried to understand that information as a sighting of Bob Chappell, alive and well, after the Paul Conde sighting of the ‘dark grey’ dinghy alongside the Four Winds [FW] at 3:55 pm on that day. Lorraine’s sighting served to discount the significance of Conde’s sighting. From that point, Neill-Fraser was prompted by police, who (when asking her about the time she had left the FW, told her that a dinghy had been seen at around four o’clock. Sue seems to have taken it as that the police were saying that the FW dinghy had been seen at five to four, and so she offered words to the effect of ‘Oh, well I must have been there on the yacht longer than I realised’.

        This apparent willingness to fit in with the police and try and help fill in the pieces of the jigsaw was at trial used by DPP Ellis as an example of her supposed lies and story-changing. He did much the same with the image of a station wagon recorded by the Commonwealth Bank CCTV, using that as the catalyst for SNF telling Ann Sanchez and then Felicity Ogilvie of her going down to Marieville Esp. late that night, after the disturbing phone call from a person unknown to her, Richard King. Mr Ellis interpreted that as a deliberate changing of her story, out of a need to keep the deception going. [Ellis’s view, not mine – gfs]

        2 Philip Triffett‘s report (firstly by phone on 28Jan2009) of SNF some 12 years earlier (1996) having solicited his help in order to:
        (i) kill her brother and become the sole inheritor of her mother’s estate. [This claim was dismissed out-of-hand by Patrick, her brother, who when informed by detectives of this claim, refuted the proposition, telling detectives, he thought it was “just malicious gossip” and naming Triffett and Hanson as the likely source. He then rang and warned Sue that “Maria and Phillip are at it again.”]

        and… solicited his help in (early 1997) in order to:
        (ii) [Kill Bob], wrap him in chicken wire, take him to deep water and put him overboard, weighed down with a tool box etc.

        The story that Triffett told was also discredited by Bob Chappell’s long-time friend, Bob Martyn. Martyn has made a sworn statement on the Triffett allegations. He accused Triffett of lying, saying that Triffett’s claims of having worked on on SNF’s earlier yacht were untrue. [He himself had worked on it and knew that Triffett’s claims about what he’d supposedly done were not factual – they did not match the actual motor that the boat had had.]

        We also should be aware that Triffett’s claims were uncorroborated, that they were self-serving and that all that is known of Triffett suggests to us that he was/is a criminal and a violent man.

        3. John Hughes (firstly on 29Jan2009, anonymously by phone) who, between 11:30pm and 12 midnight (26Jan2009), saw a dinghy travel from the direction of the Yacht Club, about 50 metres from the shore, going “north east towards the eastern shore”. He made an anonymous phone call to police from a location in Sandy Bay “a couple of days later.” At trial, he said that he had the impression that it was a woman in the dinghy, that the person “had the outline of a woman.”

        Given Lorraine and Triffett’s information – irrelevant/spurious as it now seems to us be – and now this third-informant-in-three-days, we can understand that this ‘seemed to be a woman’ information would further direct the investigation in Sue’s direction.

        It was not until 2012? just before the first failed appeal and the first failed application to the High Court that Barbara Etter and [subsequently?] Eve Ash [separately?] became involved and moved investigation into fresher fields. For example, we learnt of the presence of Grant Maddock … on the water in his dinghy, rowing out through that entry point to the marina from the water at the time that Hughes made his sighting. Maddock had a slight build, and at the time had quite long, straight hair.

        Just beyond the marina wall, was Brettingham-Moore, trying to anchor in the dark. His cruiser (motor running moderately to hold it in position?) was more or less in a straight line with Hughes at the end of the rowing club ‘spit’ and Maddock ‘in the middle’, on the water.

        According to one source, whom I won’t name, Hughes’ initial information was of a dinghy being rowed out from the marina. I believe that this account was subsequently modified till his final account (and court version) told not of seeing a motor on the dinghy, but rather, of hearing it.

        This comment of mine serves to illustrate how, in the very first three days, three persons provided police with information which pointed in Sue’s direction. In my view, the information provided by two of those sources (Lorraine and Hughes) was bona fide but misleading. In my view, the information provided by the other source (Triffett) was probably false.

  11. Robert Greenshields says:

    From your comments Andrew, it appears as if young Meaghan was immersed deeply, and super saturated into the characteristic of a fear based adherence and hopeful compatibility, that at that time enabled/ensured her of a then self interpreted personal survival security, and continuity of an existence, no matter, and irrespective of how degrading it doubtlessly was for her.

    The Tasmanian judiciary and policing standards as recorded, dismally do nothing to ensure any confidence or faith in the honesty or credibility, of not only that little islands legal forces and institutions, but cements the participants in this diabolical calamity, as more than likely to be on an equal footing with the unadulterated, cowardly, worst of the worst among officers, who have plied their criminal capacities, misusing codes and oaths, along with choreographed compliance and conformity, in all mainland states police services, to the detriment of every Australian citizen.

    The complete case is a shocking exposure and indictment as to where our nations values have been conclusively regressed to, when colluding public servants run rampant under the guise of legitimised petty officialdom.

    Maintain the faith Sue, and keep healthy and safe.

  12. John S says:

    When will this poor woman ever get out of jail, alive?

    The Feds could make a diff here: ‘force’ an inquiry by cutting back on some grants to Tas if they don’t. But not this year (election)!

    Still glad (but sad too) I left Tas! Such a backward state, bereft of any common sense it seems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.